Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

5249[Synoptic-L] The Critical Edition of Q

Expand Messages
  • Steven Craig Miller
    Nov 25, 2000
      To: Brian E. Wilson,

      << As quoted above, at the top, you state that the difference between the
      hypothetical nature of a text of Q and the hypothetical nature of the NT
      text is merely one of degree. >>

      And I would still concur with that statement.

      << The hypothetical nature of the NT text, however, is the consequence of
      there being differing manuscript witnesses to that text so that any
      reconstruction of the text is usually accompanied by a critical apparatus
      showing the variants. From this and your statement, however, it follows
      that a text of Q must also be capable of being set out as a possible
      reconstruction with a critical apparatus showing observed variants ... >>

      Now you are trying to be silly again, this time by trying to put words into
      my mouth. I NEVER said that they were the SAME hypothesis, nor even that
      they were SIMILAR hypotheses. I never suggested that Q could be
      reconstructed with a critical apparatus showing observed variants. What I
      wrote was:

      SCM: << The difference between the hypothetical nature of a Q text and the
      hypothetical nature of the NT text is merely one of degree. >>

      I'm fully aware that they are different KINDS of reconstruction,
      nonetheless, they are both hypothetical reconstructions with some degree of
      being probable. Since they are both hypotheses, the difference in NATURE of
      such hypotheses I deemed to be merely one of degree. The point I was trying
      to make, and the point you missed with your straw man rhetoric, was that
      even if one holds that the RECONSTRUCTION of the NT has a higher degree of
      probability than the RECONSTRUCTION of Q, the difference is merely a matter
      of degree. As I wrote in my earlier message, the original texts of the NT
      are lost, what we have today is merely a hypothetical reconstruction.

      << I think one thing that has come out of this thread is that it seems that
      attempting to establish the text of Q on the assumption that the Two
      Document Hypothesis is true, is not a task for text-criticism, since there
      can be no text-critical text of the hypothetical document Q. >>

      Obviously, but it is also a boring moot point since no one has ever
      suggested that one could make a text-critical text of the hypothetical
      document Q.

      I apologize for missing the point that you were poking fun at me (instead
      of the authors of the CEQ) and so it was wrong for me to assume that you
      were poking fun at them. For that I apologize. Nonetheless, I still find
      your rhetoric out of place for a form devoted to academic scholarship.
      Instead of trying to force words into my mouth, it would have been more
      respectful and civil for you to ask me to clarify my point.

      -Steven Craig Miller
      Alton, Illinois (USA)
      scmiller@...



      Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
      List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
    • Show all 21 messages in this topic